Thanks, Thomas I have just sent out my v6 patch set which includes more details to explain why/what/when.
-----Original Message----- From: Thomas Monjalon [mailto:tho...@monjalon.net] Sent: Friday, July 7, 2017 4:36 PM To: Dai, Wei <wei....@intel.com>; Yigit, Ferruh <ferruh.yi...@intel.com> Cc: dev@dpdk.org; Lu, Wenzhuo <wenzhuo...@intel.com>; Ananyev, Konstantin <konstantin.anan...@intel.com>; Wu, Jingjing <jingjing...@intel.com>; Zhang, Helin <helin.zh...@intel.com>; Peng, Yuan <yuan.p...@intel.com> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v5 2/4] net/ixgbe: add support of reset 07/07/2017 10:25, Thomas Monjalon: > Hi, > > 30/06/2017 12:12, Wei Dai: > > +/* > > + * Reest PF device. > > + */ > > +static int > > +ixgbe_dev_reset(struct rte_eth_dev *dev) { > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* To avoid unexpected behavior in VF, disable PF reset */ > > + if (dev->data->sriov.active) > > + return -ENOTSUP; > > + > > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_uninit(dev); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_init(dev); > > + > > + return ret; > > +} > > rte_eth_dev_reset() just do > + rte_eth_dev_stop(port_id); > + ret = dev->dev_ops->dev_reset(dev); > > and dev_reset() just do > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_uninit(dev); > + ret = eth_ixgbe_dev_init(dev); > > It is doing one more thing, the check of SR-IOV. > Unfortunately, this restriction is not documented. > > This is the documentation of the new API: > > /** > + * Reset a Ethernet device. > + * > + * @param port_id > + * The port identifier of the Ethernet device. > + */ > +int rte_eth_dev_reset(uint8_t port_id); > > It is really really too short. > From the beginning of this proposal we are asking you to better > explain why this API is needed. It still does not appear in the doc. > Are you adding it to offer a new service to DPDK application developpers? > Or is it just a secret sauce that you will explain only to your customers? > > This is what is expected to be documented: > - why/when this API must be used > - what the API will do > - what is needed to do after I would like to add that the description of the API must also help other PMD maintainers to implement it. Adding a new op means more work for PMD maintainers, that's why they should understand the benefit and acknowledge it. Ferruh, as the maintainer of next-net, please could you ask for feedbacks from other PMD maintainers?
